Competent Authority outside the Republic

Just some thoughts on “competent authority outside the republic”, a term that features in the NRTA (section 3F) of RSA (Pty) ltd.

For now, most RSA (Pty) ltd agents and employees cannot even fathom or comprehend the idea of another republic within their perceived territorial boundaries of southern Africa; to them ‘outside’ means in Botswana, Zimbabwe or Malawi, geographically, not legally, due to their lack of knowledge on jurisdiction and other issues relating to it.

The interpretations act, although not relevant to us, says :

“the Republic” means the territorial limits of the Republic of South Africa as constituted for the time being  in accordance with the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961

This seems very clear to some but also vague to others, how are the territorial limits defined ? According to maps and fences ? Nowhere can we find a record of coordinated of such territory. All we know is, that all land was unlawfully annexed, thus rendering any and all agreements, treaties, contracts and referendums null & void.

What qualifies for ‘competent’ is another whole story, as scattered as RGH members may seem at times, they are more competent than any other RSA agent, who, effectively are all guilty of high treason.

We the people are the authority, like a pure democracy, maybe we shouldn’t have used the term “republic’ in the first place ?

Republic (black’s law 9th edition)

republic, n. A system of government in which the people
hold sovereign power and elect representatives who
exercise that power.• It contrasts on the one hand
with a pure democracy, in which the people or community
as an organized whole wield the sovereign power
of government, and on the other with the rule of one
person (such as a king or dictator) or of an elite group
(such as an oligarchy, aristocracy, or junta). Abbr.
rep. Cf. DEMOCRACY. republican, adj.

Does RGH need any form of governance or government, an office, with staff and an official address ? There are certainly people amongst us who are more qualified to do and deal with certain things than others, that’s just natural, but that doesn’t affect the competency of the whole.

Looking at chief Usti and the SCNRFP, they don’t have a government, nor do they have a constitution, for very valid reasons.

Big difference, in respect of native american tribes, they have territorial claims, as custodians (people) or tenants (citizens), land they lived on for generations, as original people.

If RGH teamed up with one of the tribes here in southern africa, we could do the same, or if we establish our micro-nation, which would also only happen in conjunction with a tribal treaty and some form of stewardship agreement.

For the time being RGH should not have a fixed address and/or office in RSA, much rather we can purchase a van and use it as mobile embassy, sojourning, poste restante, like the customary pathways are our home for now.

6 thoughts on “Competent Authority outside the Republic”

  1. If we go back to the original declaration that the founding RGH members signed in 2010, it states quite clearly the purpose of the society which is essentially to turn our backs on any corporate government peddling a “debt based” society or usuary.

    We are not saying we do not want some form of civilised structure in order to organise ourselves under. We are simply going to the core of the universal problem and saying we want nothing to do with “debt money”. So our task is not to remove all forms of “control” but rather to replace it with sensible systems that are not a burden on society.

    As a people (and a civilised society), competent tried and tested procedures are a pre-requisite to progress. Nothing can be created or sustained on lofty dreams and the challenge to us is to do this outside of the current accepted financial system.

  2. I’ve always felt a bit uneasy about the ‘R’ in RGH. Wikipedia (not that it is the ultimate source on these things) defines a republic as:

    “A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a monarch.”

    How do we define a space that is governmentless? Do we even need a name for it? The default is no government so if a gang of thugs calling itself ‘government’ claims to have a monopoly over a space then it would have to define the state of its monopoly. Perhaps we should just be “Goodhopia” or “The Free State of Good Hope”. That ‘state’ means ‘state of being’, not state as in government.

  3. at least ‘res’ is a thing, something physical, not fiction; i remember some people equating republic to real public and i guess when many private people team up and come together it forms the public;

    looking at san marino again, who declared the very first republic seceding from the roman empire in 300 AD, they are still running it, 6500ha and ca. 33000 people, but as it goes in history, things, terms and events get muddled or mixed up, sometime deliberately… i think running any country/republic/state larger than a few thousand is not possible, hence breakaway factions and micro-nations like RGH.

    the ‘R’ in RGH makes sense, although the meaning of the actual words is not clearly defined, it gives everyone an idea, a term familiar with, similar to creating documents that resemble and ID card or passport in shape and look, but contain a different lawful content. If we would call ourselves Goodhopia and issue pink passports with unicorn or purple flames, even less would take us serious, it’s walking the fine line, a slow and steady removal from the draconian system of control.

  4. as for people’s authority, all new and old RGH members will autograph the RGH declaration, draft their own declaration and autograph the concord. By doing so you have established your ow sovereign self and your own competent authority, now able to act in concord with others. It’s all about declarations.

    to this day i cannot find any RSA or South Africa declaration, i.e. did RSA ever declare itself independent ? the 1961 referendum was a total joke, it didn’t change anything wrt to the actual owners of the colony, it only included less than 10% of the population and its result was 49.85% to 50.15%.

    the ‘south africa act 1909’ and the union that followed in 1910 are all unlawful, a fraud and not to be recognized at all. In other words, if there is no proof on any lawful declaration, South Africa, RSA and RSA (Pty) ltd are no competent authority, they cannot make a judgment on anyone else and their competency, RGH does not seek recognition from RSA, it is not required. If RSA declares RGH incompetent, thus unlawful or illegal, they can take us to court or we facilitate a tribunal and we will reiterate that RSA is not in a position to make any declarations or determinations, until they answer all our simple questions presented on 4 occasions to the constitutional court.

    we do what we do, with truth, honour and integrity, in fact, anyone can do what members of RGH do on his/her own, i.e. create their own documents, trusts, passports, declarations, stop paying tax, fees and fines… it’s just a good exercise doing it as groups, since we all in on this together…

    1. My name is Lionel Solomons, I’m very much interested in knowing more about RGH and want to experience my sovereign position

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *